How a DUI impacts Nurses in PA

How a DUI Impacts Nurses in PA

Nurses are incredible people who have made it their life’s mission to protect and care for others. This is why many of our nursing clients find it difficult to reconcile how they made a poor decision that endangered themselves and the public.

Our firm recognizes more than anything that good people make mistakes. ZLF has represented dozens of nurses facing DUI and other criminal charges in Pennsylvania.

Do I need to report my DUI when I’m charged, or when the case ends?

Both, with certain caveats. Title 49, Chapter 21 Section 21.29a, entitled Reporting of Crimes and Disciplinary Action, sets forth the requirements and timelines for nurses to report pending DUI and criminal charges, as follows:

  • A registered nurse must notify the Board of pending criminal charges within 30 days of the filing of the criminal charges or on the biennial renewal application, whichever comes first;

  • A registered nurse must notify the Board of a criminal conviction, plea of guilty or no contest, or admission into a probation without verdict or accelerated rehabilitation disposition within 30 days of the disposition or on the biennial renewal application, whichever comes first;

  • A registered nurse must notify the Board of disciplinary action in the nature of a final order taken against the registered nurse by the licensing authority of another state, territory or country within 90 days of receiving notice of the disciplinary action, or on the biennial renewal application, whichever comes first.

As a result, if you are an RN charged with a DUI or other criminal offense, you must provide notice to the nursing board within 30 days from the date your criminal charges were filed. You will also be required to provide notice within 30 days from the final disposition of your case if it involves a guilty finding or admission into a diversionary program in Pennsylvania.

DUI Consequences for Nurses

A DUI arrest and conviction can lead to serious consequences for nurses, which may include:

  • Mandatory minimum jail sentences ranging from 2-3 days for first offenses, 5-90 days for second offenses, and 90-days to 1 year for third or subsequent offenses;

  • Mandatory minimum fines ranging from $300 to $2,500, along with court costs;

  • Loss of driving privileges from 12 to 18 months, plus any additional suspensions faced for habitual offender classification or add-on traffic charges;

  • Drug and alcohol assessments and mandatory screenings;

  • Being deemed by the Pennsylvania Board of Nursing as unable to practice professional nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of addiction.

The Zuckerman Law Firm LLC helps nurses defend against 1st, 2nd and 3rd DUI charges.

Whether it’s your first DUI, or you are a repeat offender, our firm has successfully helped nurses accused of DUI in Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania. For a free consultation, call 412-447-5580 today.

What are consequences for International Students and Non-Citizens charged with criminal offenses in Pennsylvania?

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND NON-CITIZENS CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL OFFENSES IN PENNSYLVANIA?

Disclaimer: Any international student or non-citizen facing a criminal investigation or a criminal charge should immediately seek a consultation with a criminal defense attorney and an immigration attorney. Seek legal representation immediately - do NOT represent yourself or rely upon the accuracy of any internet articles in making important decisions.

If you are an international student on a Visa studying at a local college in Pittsburgh, and have located this article, you may find yourself facing a criminal charge, DUI offense or serious traffic violation. If you are in this unfortunate situation, do not represent yourself, do not speak with law enforcement, and make your next decision a simple and necessary one - call a criminal defense attorney right away.

In addition to calling and hiring a criminal defense attorney, all VISA holders, asylum seekers and permanent residents should also consult with an immigration lawyer as well. An immigration attorney can provide expert advice and guidance on the immigration process while your criminal defense attorney seeks the best potential outcome on your pending charges.

This article is designed to provide brief insight regarding the criminal law consequences for international students, and not a substitute for qualified representation from a criminal defense attorney and immigration lawyer.

Why you need a Criminal Defense Attorney AND an Immigration Attorney

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution requires criminal defense attorneys to provide competent and proper legal advice to non-citizen defendants regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Essentially, an attorney has to notify a non-citizen defendant that there is a risk of adverse immigration consequences, unless deportation consequences are truly clear.

What is a “conviction” for immigration purposes?

A “conviction” with respect to a non-citizen means any formal judgment of guilt entered by a court, or if adjudication of guilt was withheld in a situation where a judge or jury found the non-citizen guilty, or the non-citizen entered a plea of guilty or a no-contest plea (nolo contendere) or has admitted sufficient facts warranting a finding of guilty and a judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty or restraint on the non-citizen’s liberty.

Essentially, if there is an outcome in which you were found guilty or admitted guilt through a plea bargain or diversionary program, you could be found to have a “conviction” for immigration purposes, even if there is no criminal conviction on your record. Typically, the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program does not require an admission of guilt. However, Probation Without Verdict (PWV) for drug offenses will require an admission of guilt.

What are the Classes of Criminal Convictions that Can Lead to Immigration Consequences?

Under federal law, there are several classes of convictions that can lead to immigration consequences for non-citizens, including:

  • Aggravated Felony: Including rape, murder, sexual crimes, illicit trafficking of controlled substances, certain firearms offenses, violent crimes carrying punishment of 1 year in jail or more, theft or burglary offenses carrying punishment of one year or more, crimes of fraud or deceit where the victim’s loss exceeds $10,000, owning, controlling managing or supervising a prostitution business, and/or any attempt or conspiracy conviction to commit an aggravated felony. For more information, see INA Section 101(a)(43).

  • Crime of Moral Turpitude: Acts which meet the element of a crime involving moral turpitude, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime of moral turpitude. Crimes of moral turpitude may include, but are not limited to: crimes involving fraud or deceit, theft, specific intent crimes or crimes involving malice or knowledge as a mens rea, lewd intent crimes, sex offenses, and certain offenses where bodily injury or serious bodily injury was caused. This list of possible crimes is not exhaustive, as there may be other charges that would constitute a crime of moral turpitude.

  • Controlled Substance Offenses: A violation of any state law or regulations relating to a controlled substance.

  • Domestic Violence Crimes

  • Child Abuse/Crimes Against Children

There are additional classes of charges that may have negative consequences that are not listed here. Anyone facing a criminal charge should speak with a qualified immigration attorney to determine the potential immigration consequences regarding his or her pending criminal charges.

ZLF Pursues Successful Outcomes for International Students and Non-Citizens Facing Criminal Charges in Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania.

As experienced criminal defense attorneys who have prosecuted and defended international students and non-citizens facing criminal charges, we have one goal in mind: pursue a dismissal or reduction of serious offenses to maintain the client’s path to citizenship or continued stay in the United States.

Here are some of the many real life case examples where the Zuckerman Law Firm obtained a successful outcome for international students or non-citizens:

  • Visa holder facing 3rd Degree Misdemeanor Harassment charge. Result: Negotiated agreement for future withdrawal of charge.

  • Green card holder charged with 1st Degree Misdemeanor Retail Theft. Result: Negotiated agreement for full withdrawal of charge.

  • Visa holder facing a misdemeanor DUI charge. Result: Negotiated admission into the ARD program, where client will become eligible to have charges dismissed and expunged without any admission of guilt.

  • International student charged with 2nd Degree Misdemeanor Simple Assault, potentially constituting a Crime of Moral Turpitude. Result: Negotiation reached for client to complete anger management counseling. All charges dismissed.

  • Asylum seekers facing 2nd Degree Misdemeanor Recklessly Endangering Another Person charges in connection with child neglect allegation. Result: Negotiated agreement for reduction to summary disorderly conduct offense. Their independent immigration attorney concluded that disorderly conduct offense would not have immigration consequences for them based upon their individual circumstances.

  • Asylum Seeker charged with 1st Degree Misdemeanor Prostitution. Result: Negotiated reduction to summary disorderly conduct for fines/costs only, which carries no adverse consequences.

  • Green card holder seeking citizenship facing Theft charge, constituting Crime of Moral Turpitude or potentially an Aggravated Felony under INA. Result: Negotiated agreement for dismissal of charge after completion of community service.

  • Green card holder facing summary Defiant Trespass offense for visiting casino after being banned due to self-exclusion. Result: Negotiated agreement for dismissal of charge.

  • Husband and wife on VISA charged with Simple Assault in connection with a domestic violence incident. Result: Charges dismissed.

If you are here in the United States as a permanent citizen, asylum seeker, or on a visa or green card, don’t represent yourself on pending charges. For a free consultation, call the Zuckerman Law Firm at 412-447-5580 today.

What if I have a prior DUI, but the officer only charged me with a First DUI in PA?

What if I have a prior DUI offense, but the officer only charged me with a 1st Offense?

If you’re facing a new DUI case in Pennsylvania, but the officer only charged you with a 1st offense DUI, you may think that you’re lucking out and will face reduced penalties. However, you shouldn’t assume things will stay that way.

District Attorney’s Offices will typically order a state and multi-state “rap sheet,” or criminal record detailing your prior criminal history. If the prosecution learns that you had a prior DUI conviction or diversionary program for a DUI in Pennsylvania or another state, they have the ability to amend your criminal charges either at the preliminary hearing, or by filing a criminal information at the Court of Common Pleas.

If you are facing a DUI in Pennsylvania, and had a prior DUI offense, there are a few important things to keep in mind.

Talk to your lawyer and provide honest details about your criminal history

Anyone facing a DUI charge in Pennsylvania needs to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney for representation. You should be honest in discussing your criminal history with your attorney, even if you had a prior criminal charge that was expunged or dismissed. As experienced criminal defense attorneys, it is incredibly frustrating to learn when a client was dishonest about their criminal history.

Was your prior DUI outside of Pennsylvania?

If you had a prior DUI outside of the state of PA, your attorney will want to know what the disposition of the case was. Did you plead guilty, receive a deferred adjudication, a diversionary program, or were your DUI charges dropped altogether? These are questions your attorney will want to know, because the answer will determine whether or not you will face a 1st or 2nd DUI charge.

For an out-of-state DUI to count, you must have been convicted of a DUI offense that is an equivalent offense to a DUI offense under PA law. Additionally, some counties may prohibit entry into the ARD Program if you received a similar program in another state. For example, our office recently represented a client accused of a 2nd DUI offense, based upon a claim that he had a prior DUI conviction from Florida. Our firm learned that the prior DUI in Florida was completely withdrawn without the client having completed a diversionary program. The client’s charges were amended to a 1st Offense DUI and he was able to receive entry into the ARD Program.

Additionally, if you had an out-of-state DUI that is eligible for expungement, you should contact your prior lawyer to see if you can get the prior DUI expunged. An expungement of that criminal record information may help ensure that your current case is only treated as a 1st DUI.

You may have to report the prior DUI on an ARD Application

If you are applying for ARD on a current DUI, many counties will require you to sign paperwork, subject to penalties for Unsworn Falsification to Authorities, that you have not received a diversionary program in another state or jurisdiction. If you lie on the form, you could be subject to criminal prosecution for lying.

The Zuckerman Law Firm LLC can help.

The Zuckerman Law Firm has experience representing those accused of 1st, 2nd or 3rd lifetime DUI offenses. If you are facing a new DUI case in Western Pennsylvania, please give us a call today at 412-447-5580 to discuss your case.

DUI Charges and Chemical Test Refusal Suspension Dismissed

The Zuckerman Law Firm is pleased to announce that DUI charges were dismissed against a client in Washington County, Pennsylvania. The client was accused of being in actual physical control of a running vehicle that was parked in a parking space. Aside from his mere presence inside of a running vehicle, there was no evidence to establish that he touched the brake pedal, gear shifter, steering wheel, or any of the other internal mechanisms of the car required for operation. Additionally, nobody witnessed him move the car at any point. The client maintained his innocence and denied that he ever drove or had any intention of driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

Although the magistrate refused to dismiss the charges after the preliminary hearing, favorable testimony was elicited at the preliminary hearing, which was used to file a pretrial motion to dismiss, called a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. By way of a factual stipulation to the preliminary hearing transcript, the trial court fully dismissed all charges, finding that the Commonwealth did not meet even a basic prima facie burden for the DUI offense. Subsequently, the client challenged his 12-month license suspension imposed as a result of his failure to submit to blood testing, and the appeal was successful.

All DUI cases are very fact specific, and require a careful analysis by an experienced criminal defense attorney. For a free consultation, never hesitate to contact our law firm.

What is the DUI Hotel in Allegheny County?

What is the DUI Hotel in Allegheny County?

If you found this article, you may be facing a 1st Time DUI in Pittsburgh. Or maybe you had your 1st DUI more than 10 years ago, and were recently charged with another DUI recently. If so, you may be concerned about the prospect of serving jail time on your case, due to the mandatory jail sentences that apply to most DUI offenses.

However, not everyone ends up in jail, and Allegheny County provides several options to offenders and their attorneys to pursue a resolution to avoid jail time. One of those options is the DUI Alternative to Jail Program, otherwise known as the DUI Hotel.

How does the DUI Alternative to Jail Program (DUI Hotel) work in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania?

In 2010, Allegheny County launched the DUI Alternative to Jail Program as an option to keep 1st time DUI offenders, or those otherwise charged with offenses classified as 1st DUI offenses, out of the county jail. The DUI Hotel gives offenders the ability to complete nearly all required DUI penalties over the course of an intensive, four-day program held at a dry hotel.

Before attending the program, you will have “pre-hotel” requirements to complete, which may include surrendering your license, paying fines, attending AA/NA meetings, or related requirements. Upon check-in, you will be subject to a breathalyzer test and may have your luggage and belongings searched to determine if there’s alcohol or non-prescription drugs present.

During the 4-day DUI Hotel program, you will participate in intensive curriculum, to include Alcohol Highway Safety School and group therapy. Once complete, you receive “credit and time served” towards your mandatory minimum jail sentence, allowing you to avoid the jail completely.

Qualifying for the DUI Alternative to Jail Program

In order to qualify, you and your DUI defense attorney should carefully consider the evidence and options against you to see if the DUI Hotel is your best option. Specifically, your attorney should exhaust all other options, which might include your entry into the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program. Alternatively, if your charge is reduced to a 1st Offense DUI General Impairment without any sentencing enhancements for an accident or chemical test refusal, you will not face any jail time, making the DUI Hotel unnecessary.

Second, your attorney will have to advocate for the DUI Alternative to Jail program as part of a plea agreement, or convince your sentencing judge to grant the DUI Hotel as an option to avoid jail time. If this occurs, your sentencing judge will typically sentence you to the mandatory jail time (2-4 days or 3-6 days in the Allegheny County Jail), with permission to serve the sentence through the DUI Alternative to Jail Program.

Third, you will have to schedule, pay for, and complete the program within the timeframe specified by your sentencing Judge. Many judges require you to pay the approximate $500 cost within 60 days after sentencing, and require you to complete the 4-day program within 90 days after sentencing. You should pay careful attention to your sentencing order and probation officer’s directions. If you fail to pay for or complete the program, then you will be required to appear back in court on a future date to complete your sentence in jail.

What are the benefits to the DUI Hotel?

There are several benefits to the DUI Hotel, which include:

  • Serving your “jail time” at a dry hotel, instead of the Allegheny County Jail;

  • Not having to serve a period of house arrest that is typically much longer than your mandatory jail time (i.e. 30 days of house arrest when you are only facing 3 days in jail);

  • Reducing the number of offenders who violate their probation by failing to complete their treatment and classes;

  • Reducing recidivism through treatment.

The Zuckerman Law Firm can help you navigate through your 1st Offense DUI

If you are charged with a 1st DUI, you are best served hiring an experienced attorney who can review your case, recommend and pursue an outcome that is consistent with your goals. The Zuckerman Law Firm has represented hundreds of DUI offenders with one goal in mind: help minimize penalties and consequences so you can move on with your life. For a free consultation, call our skilled DUI Lawyers at 412-447-5580 today.

How can the DA's office prove a DUI General Impairment charge when I refused a blood test or a breath test?

How can the DA’s office prove a DUI General Impairment charge in PA when I refused a blood test or breath test?

If you refused to take a blood test or a breath test in Pennsylvania, and the police officer had reasonable grounds to suspect you were driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you will lose your license for either 12 months, or 18 months if you had a prior DUI or chemical test refusal. However, since you refused the test, you may be wondering how the DA’s office will try to prove your guilt on a DUI charge when they have no evidence of your blood alcohol content.

Pennsylvania has established a DUI General Impairment charge to ensure that someone who refuses to submit to chemical testing does not get off the hook for a DUI. In a DUI General Impairment prosecution, the Commonwealth does not need to offer evidence of blood or breath testing results to prove your guilt. We offer this article as a basic summary of the law and evidence that may be offered against you in court.

Pennsylvania DUI General Impairment Law

The crime of DUI General Impairment is found under Title 75 Section 3802(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code. To prove you guilty of a DUI General Impairment offense in Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you drove, operated or were in actual physical control over the movement of a vehicle after imbibing a sufficient amount of alcohol rendering you incapable of safely driving, operating or being in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle. Pennsylvania Standard Jury Instruction 17.3802(a)(1) further provides that a “defendant need not have been drunk or severely intoxicated or driving wildly or erratically to commit this crime. It is enough if alcohol had substantially impaired the defendant’s normal mental or physical faculties that were essential to safe operation of a vehicle.”

As noted in the law, the prosecutor does not need to prove a specific BAC. The prosecutor doesn’t need to prove you were drunk. The prosecutor doesn’t need to prove you drove in an out of control manner. The DA must prove that you consumed alcohol and that it substantially impaired your normal physical or mental faculties which are needed to safely operate a vehicle.

DUI General Impairment Evidence in PA

DUI General Impairment offenses are proven through a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence, which may include:

  • Erratic Driving and Traffic Violations: Although not required, proof of erratic driving or other traffic violations may be used to establish your guilt. Most common forms of erratic driving include auto accidents or near-accidents, repeated swerving and weaving, delayed responses to traffic signals, failing to use turn signals and failing to fully stop at stop signs or red lights. However, technical violations such as having a broken taillight are not indicative of impaired driving.

  • Your Admissions: In most cases, your own statements are the most incriminating evidence against you. Any statements you made about the type and quantity of alcohol you drank or drugs that you used can be used against you unless those statements were obtained in violation of your constitutional rights.

  • Signs of Intoxication: Police officers receive training on the detection of impaired drivers due to drugs and alcohol, and are trained to look for general signs of intoxication, such as an odor of alcoholic beverages, bloodshot and glassy eyes, slurred speech, difficulty answering questions, difficulty with standing, exiting a vehicle or swaying, and other signs showing impaired coordination.

  • Standardized Field Sobriety Tests: Police officers generally attempt to administer Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, which include the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (i.e. following pen with your eyes), Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand. During these tests, officers look for certain clues of impairment in your performance. Depending upon the number of impairment clues present in any or all of the tests, research has shown that there is a 65-77% chance that your BAC will exceed a .10%.

  • Preliminary Breath Testing (PBT): The purpose of the preliminary breath test is to allow an officer to determine that alcohol is the chemical basis of impairment. The test is typically used to establish probable cause to arrest, and the actual result cannot be offered into evidence against you at trial.

  • Refusal of Chemical Testing as “Consciousness of Guilt” Evidence: The prosecutor in your case may attempt to argue that you refused to take a blood or breath test because you knew you were guilty of DUI. This is what is referred to as “Consciousness of Guilt” evidence. Based upon recent case law developments, your attorney may be able to prevent the DA from arguing this point to a jury or to a judge in a non-jury trial.

  • Drug Recognition Experts: In drug related DUI cases, a Drug Recognition Expert may conduct a 12-step analysis to determine if you were impaired by illegal or prescription drugs.

What should I do next if I’m charged with a DUI General Impairment Offense in Pittsburgh, PA?

As is clear from the law, the prosecution does not need evidence of a specific BAC or erratic driving to prove this charge. Most DUI General Impairment cases are fact-specific, and require a careful and thorough factual analysis by a skilled Pennsylvania DUI defense attorney. For a free consultation, please contact our office today at 412-447-5580.

Bethel Park woman's Felony Theft charges withdrawn at Preliminary Hearing

Our firm recently represented a single mother accused of Theft by Unlawful Taking, graded as a 3rd Degree Felony for exceeding $2,000 in value. A felony theft conviction carries a maximum sentence of up to 7 years in jail and a permanent record that can never be expunged.

This was a case where the only issue at dispute was the monetary value of the stolen items. There was ample evidence to support the elements of the charges filed in the case, making it likely that the client would be convicted if the matter proceeded to trial. Fortunately, Associate Attorney Nick Milardo was able to reach an agreement for the client to pay restitution in return for a withdrawal of the theft charge and a plea to a summary disorderly conduct offense. This outcome saved the client not only from having a lifelong felony record, but thousands of dollars in additional costs.

This case is a clear-cut example of the importance of investing in an attorney to represent you at a preliminary hearing. Had the client waived the hearing, she would be facing a felony trial. However, having retained prepared legal counsel, she was able to pursue a favorable outcome at the earliest stage of prosecution, saving thousands of dollars in future legal fees and court costs.

How to Fight a DUI Case in PA

How to Fight a DUI Case in PA

Any attorney fighting a DUI case in Allegheny County and the remaining counties in Western Pennsylvania must have the necessary training, experience and skill needed to take on the challenge. Never assume that you are guilty of DUI because you drank alcohol or had drugs in your system. There may be defenses available in your case that a skilled DUI lawyer can attack. This article is designed to highlight some of the possible defenses that might apply to your DUI case.

Unlawful Traffic Stop Defenses

One potential line of attack in your DUI case centers around whether or not police officers illegally pulled you over. Typically, police officers will conduct a traffic stop on individuals when they’ve observed one or more vehicle code violations. Police officers need probable cause to perform a traffic stop when you’ve committed a vehicle code violation that does not require further investigation, such as observing you drive with a broken taillight. Alternatively, they need reasonable suspicion to believe you committed a traffic violation to stop your car for traffic offenses requiring a further investigation. However, Pennsylvania case law prohibits officers from stopping vehicles for “momentary and minor” violations, such as briefly crossing the fog line with your tires.

If you were subjected to a traffic stop without the necessary reasonable suspicion or probable cause, your attorney can file a Motion to Suppress Evidence. If successful, evidence obtained against you cannot be used at trial, which may lead to a withdrawal of your charges.

Attacking an Officer’s Observations Regarding your Physical Condition

After pulling you over, police officers will pay close attention to your physical characteristics which may be indicative of impairment. Common terms of art that police will refer to include:

  • A strong, moderate or mild odor of alcohol emanating from your breath or person;

  • Slurred, slowed and deliberate speech;

  • Bloodshot and glassy eyes;

  • Disheveled or messy clothing and appearance;

  • Fumbling for your license, insurance and registration;

  • An unstable or unsteady gait upon exiting vehicle;

Police officers draw conclusions about your behavior despite only having encountered you for a matter of minutes. Medical symptoms and behavioral traits can be misinterpreted as evidence of intoxication by a police officer who knows little to nothing about your background.

No Proof that you Drove, Operated or Exercised Physical Control Over the Movement of a Vehicle

The first element in all DUI charges requires the Commonwealth to prove that you actually drove, operated or exercised physical control over the movement of a vehicle. There are cases that arise where individuals are simply “sleeping it off'“ in a parked car with the engine running and the heat/AC on. In other cases, police and other witnesses never see you drive a car at all. These cases are very fact specific, and require careful analysis by your attorney.

Insufficient Proof of Impairment

Pennsylvania has DUI General Impairment charges that apply in drug and alcohol related DUI cases. For these charges, the Commonwealth must also prove that you were incapable of safe driving, or in other words, that drugs or alcohol substantially impaired normal physical or mental faculties that are essential to safe driving. An inability to establish impairment can lead to an acquittal on the general impairment charge. In some cases, hiring a defense expert toxicologist may be necessary.

Field Sobriety Test Defenses

In Pennsylvania, there is no requirement that an individual submit to Field Sobriety testing. However, law enforcement officers will never tell you that the test is not required, so most clients end up submitting to field sobriety tests.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has created a curriculum to train officers in a standard procedure to administer three standardized field sobriety tests: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk and Turn (WAT) and One Leg Stand (OLS). Police officers are trained to look for “clues of impairment” during the performance of these tests. If you demonstrate clues of impairment during the performance of the tests, police will typically place you under arrest for DUI.

There are many issues that arise during the Field Sobriety Test phase, which include:

  • Improper administration of Field Sobriety Tests;

  • Not providing proper instructions to the suspect;

  • Improperly documenting clues of impairment, or noting clues of impairment that are defined by NHTSA;

  • Administering tests that are not certified by NHTSA, such as having the driver recite the alphabet backwards, count backwards, or the Romberg balance test;

  • Administering tests for individuals who have medical problems that will skew test results.

Breath Test Defense - Observation Period

Chemical testing of your BAC through breath testing will occur at a police station or state police barracks. Title 67 Section 77.24 sets forth a mandatory observation period, where by a police officer or certified breath test operator must observe you for at least 20 consecutive minutes prior to administering the first alcohol breath test. The officer or breath test operator observing you must be able to establish that you didn’t drink fluids, regurgitate, vomit, eat, smoke, or chew gum. This is to ensure that that there is no mouth alcohol present to skew your testing results.

During this observation period, it is rare for a police officer or breath test operator to be watching you for 20 minutes straight. Typically, they’ll divert their attention away from you, choosing to prepare police reports or enter information into an Intoxilyzer device rather than staring at you for 20 minutes straight. This line of inquiry could potentially create doubt in the minds of jurors hearing your case.

Breath Test Defense - Mouth Alcohol Contaminating Sample

Although prosecutors will often claim that slope detectors will prevent mouth alcohol from contaminating breath test results, these devices aren’t foolproof. Clients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) may experience a faulty test result due to reflux of ethanol from the stomach, which will contaminate the breath test result. If slope detectors are successful at keeping mouth alcohol from contaminating results, then why does the government require a 20 minute waiting period? Additionally, asthma medications may skew test results.

Breath Test Defense - Improper Calibration or Device Malfunctioning

Breath testing equipment must be subject to regular maintenance, testing and calibration. Breath test operators are required to obtain two consecutive breath tests from the suspect, and then also administer simulator tests used simulator solution designed to give a reading of .10% after the conclusion of your 2nd breath test. If your breath test results, or the simulator results, differ from an allowable amount, the breath testing equipment must be placed out of service, calling into question the validity of your test. However, many officers overcome equipment problems by simply taking the suspect to a hospital for blood alcohol testing.

Challenging Warrantless Blood Test

In the 2016 case of Birchfield v. North Dakota, the United States Supreme Court ruled that in order for police to pursue a blood test of a DUI suspect, they must either have a warrant, or an exception to the warrant requirement must be present. Based upon this decision, Section 3803 of the vehicle code was modified to enhance the grading of DUI offenses where the driver refused blood test when there was either a warrant, court order, or other constitutionally permissible basis.

Consent to a blood draw is an exception to the warrant requirement. Police officers continue to request chemical testing without warrants, claiming that a warrant is not necessary because the suspect consented to blood testing. Determining whether or not police obtained valid consent to chemical testing requires a careful consideration of the individual case facts.

Blood Test Defenses

When blood samples are drawn from a DUI suspect, they must be collected, stored and analyzed correctly. The testing equipment must be properly calibrated and in good working condition. To pose a challenge to the validity of blood results, your attorney cannot rely upon the standard “discovery packet” provided by the District Attorney’s Office. Your lawyer will need to file special discovery requests to necessary info from the lab, including equipment maintenance records, calibration records, and records documenting the qualifications of lab scientists. You will need to hire an expert laboratory data auditor to review the laboratory documents to ensure that the laboratory is following proper testing protocols. This type of defense can be very costly.

Violating the Two Hour Rule

In Alcohol DUI cases, the Commonwealth must prove that your BAC was a .08% or greater within two hours of the time you drove, operated or exercised control over the movement of a vehicle. The failure to obtain the blood or breath sample within two hours of the time you were seen driving may lead to a dismissal of your case.

However, Section 3802(g) provides an exception, allowing for the admissibility of BAC evidence obtained more than two hours after driving where the Commonwealth shows good cause explaining why the chemical test sample could not be obtained within two hours, and establishes the suspect didn’t drink alcohol or use drugs between the time of arrest and the time the sample was taken.

An unnecessary delay of over two hours between the time of your traffic stop and the time of testing may prohibit the Commonwealth from offering your BAC into evidence, which may substantially hamper their prosecution.

Trust the Zuckerman Law Firm for your DUI Defense

Mounting a proper defense to a DUI case can be costly when experts such as toxicologists and lab experts are needed. Before making a decision on whether or not to fight your DUI case, it is important for your attorney to discuss the facts with you along with pricing and options.

Whether you choose to fight your DUI or pursue a plea agreement, you need the right advocate in your corner. Attorney Dave Zuckerman has litigated evidence suppression motions, non-jury trials and jury trials on DUI cases. He has prosecuted or defended hundreds of DUI cases in his career. If you’re charged with a DUI and believe there’s a defense to your allegations, contact the experienced DUI defense team of the Zuckerman Law Firm at 412-447-5580.

Person Not to Possess Charges Dismissed for Man Facing 10-20 years in Prison

Attorney Nicholis Milardo represented a client charged with two counts of Persons Not to Possess Firearms, two counts of Carrying a Firearm Without a License, Tampering with Physical Evidence and providing False Identification to Law Enforcement. Due to the client’s past criminal record, he was facing a standard range sentence of 10-20 years of incarceration if convicted on the firearms offenses. Due to confidentiality concerns, names and case details will be omitted from the description.

The client was accused of being a back-seat passenger in a vehicle, to which two firearms were found in the vicinity of the vehicle’s driver. The client was accused of constructive possession of the firearms even though he did not drive or own the vehicle containing the weapons, and there was no DNA or fingerprint evidence to connect the weapons to the client. The defense had a strong argument to present to the jury that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the client had the power and intent to control weapons found in the vehicle.

Due to unreasonable plea offers, the firm prepared for a jury trial. During the course of his preparations, Attorney Milardo discovered statements which helped to exonerate his client. Upon bringing these statements to the attention of the prosecutor on his case, a plea offer was negotiated for the client to plead guilty to providing a False Identification to Law Enforcement, a 3rd-Degree Misdemeanor, for time served. All felony firearms charges were withdrawn.

In cases where multiple individuals are found in a vehicle containing drugs or guns, police will typically proceed to charge everyone with the crimes under a theory of joint constructive possession. With careful preparation, Attorney Milardo helped ensure that his client would not be imprisoned for decades for a crime he didn’t commit.

Attorney Nicholas Milardo Selected to National Trial Lawyers Top 40 Under 40 List

We are please to announce that in January of 2020, Attorney Nicholis Milardo was selected by the National Trial Lawyers as a Top 40 Under 40 Attorney for Criminal Defense in Pennsylvania. The NTL Top 40 Under 40 is a professional organization composed of the top trial lawyers from each state or region who are under the age of 40, and membership is by invitation only.

According to the NTL website: “Membership is extended solely to the select few of the most qualified attorneys from each state who demonstrate superior qualifications of leadership, reputation, influence, stature and public profile measured by objective and uniformly applied standards in compliance with state bar and national Rule 4-7. Invitees must exemplify superior qualifications, trial results, and leadership as a young lawyer under the age of 40. Selection is based on a thorough multi-phase objective process which includes peer nominations combined with third-party research.”

Joint Criminal Defense Representation: Can a criminal defense attorney represent two co-defendants in Pennsylvania?

CAN ONE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY REPRESENT TWO PEOPLE CHARGED WITH THE SAME CRIMES?

If you have found our website, you are likely searching for an answer on whether or not a criminal defense attorney can represent two co-defendants in a criminal case. Or in other words, can two individuals who are accused of committing the same crimes or are involved in the same incident be represented by one lawyer? The Zuckerman Law Firm LLC has represented individuals charged in connection with the same incident in Western Pennsylvania, and this decision has been made with careful consideration of the facts and issues.

Is there a conflict of interest associated with joint representation? Can this conflict of interest be waived?

The simple answer is that in most cases, a conflict of interest will exist. A conflict of interest may arise when an attorney represents two parties who are charged as co-defendants (both accused of committing the same crime) or cross-complainants (two individuals accusing one another of crimes, typically in domestic assault cases).

The Rules of Professional Conduct state generally that an attorney should not represent a client if by representing one client, the other client would be negatively impacted. A clearcut example is a scenario where Client A and Client B are in a vehicle where drugs are found, where Client A blames Client B for the drugs, and Client B blames Client A for the drugs. In this scenario, it is impossible to represent one client without harming the other client’s interests.

However, some conflicts of interests can be waived under the Rules of Professional Conduct if the lawyer believes he can provide competent and diligent representation to each client, representation is legal, representation doesn’t involve asserting a claim by one client against another client, and each client gives informed consent.

Examples where joint representation was provided by the Zuckerman Law Firm

Our firm has jointly represented clients charged in connection with the same incident. Generally speaking, our firm has done so for preliminary hearings and traffic cases when clients are not accusing one another of wrongdoing, the clients have similar defenses or arguments to be presented in court, or other circumstances make it likely that the case will not proceed to a full hearing or trial in the future. Here are some real-life case examples where our firm accepted joint representation:

  • Case 1: Husband and wife charged with Simple Assault on one another, where both parties are refusing to testify under the 5th Amendment, and there is no independent evidence to prove the charges against one another without their testimony. Charges were dismissed for insufficient evidence against both parties.

  • Case 2: Boyfriend and girlfriend were accused of assaulting a third party. Both parties asserted that Client 1 had no role in the altercation, and Client 2 acted solely in self-defense. The firm represented both parties at a preliminary hearing, and the parties obtained separate legal counsel for trial. Both parties were found not guilty at trial.

  • Case 3: Boyfriend was charged with a DUI and girlfriend was charged with marijuana possession. Girlfriend told police the marijuana was hers, and the boyfriend was not charged with it. As a result, the clients were not blaming one another for the narcotics, so joint representation was appropriate. Girlfriend’s charges were withdrawn by agreement, and boyfriend entered ARD on DUI charges.

  • Case 4: Boyfriend and girlfriend charged with possession of drugs and paraphernalia found within the home. Both parties made admissions that the items found therein belonged to the both of them. As a result, the parties were not blaming one another. One case pending, other case resolved with plea to summary disorderly conduct.

  • Case 5: Father and son accused of stealing equipment they believed was abandoned. Both parties acknowledged taking the items, unaware that they belonged to someone else. As a result, both parties had consistent defenses, making joint representation possible. Both parties received ARD for the case.

  • Case 5: Husband and wife were accused of a Racing on Highways traffic offense. Both parties had discussed the matter fully before contacting the firm, denied having been involved in a racing incident, and were asserting the same defenses. The firm jointly represented the couple, obtaining not guilty verdicts for the racing offenses.

Here are some real-life examples where our firm rejected joint representation:

  • Case 1: Person A was accused of attempting to activate stolen cell phones at a retail location, and Person B was waiting behind in a vehicle. Given the likelihood that Person B would blame everything on Person A, joint representation was rejected.

  • Case 2: Boyfriend and girlfriend were charged with assaulting one another. A third-party witnessed the acts committed by each individual. Cross examination of this third-party witness could have benefitted one client and hurt the other. As a result, joint representation was rejected.

The decision on whether or not to accept joint representation is made after a careful consideration of the facts, defenses and related issues.

What are the benefits and downsides to joint representation?

Typically, a reduction in cost is the biggest benefit, as co-defendants may typically pay less to have one lawyer attend a hearing rather than hiring separate lawyers. Furthermore, in cases where co-defendants are not blaming one another and are seeking similar outcomes, joint representation may be appropriate.

However, there are significant downsides to joint representation. With standard representation, information provided by one client to an attorney is kept confidential. With joint representation, information provided by one client may be shared with the other client, and vice versa, which may be detrimental. Furthermore, with cases that proceed past the preliminary hearing phase of prosecution, attorneys will typically not represent two parties at trial, leading one party to have to change lawyers midway through the case.

I’d like to seek a consultation for joint representation. What should I do?

First, our office recommends that only one individual contact the Zuckerman Law Firm LLC at 412-447-5580 for a free consultation. This individual should be sure to contact the firm in a private setting where nobody can overhear the conversation, including the other party involved.

There is a reason we do not recommend a joint consultation amongst co-defendants. First, the attorney-client privilege protects communications made between an individual and his attorney only. If another party is privy to the conversation, the statements made during the consultation may not be privileged, and may be used against you in court.

Second, the attorney needs to properly determine whether there is a conflict of interest, and whether or not it can be waived. If the attorney determines that the conflict cannot be waived, it is important that they have only heard one party’s version of events. If the attorney cannot waive the conflict, and has heard both parties speak on the matter, it might prohibit the attorney from representing anyone on the case. As a result, it’s recommended that the lawyer speak with one party first and then make a decision on whether or not to proceed with individual or joint representation.

If you and a friend or loved one are seeking joint criminal defense representation, please contact the Zuckerman Law Firm at 412-447-5580. If joint representation makes sense, we can have the parties sign paperwork to proceed forward. In cases where joint representation would be unethical, our firm can refer one party to another qualified criminal defense attorney to ensure that everyone involved receives the proper representation they deserve. Our firm strives to make the right ethical decision in each scenario.

Reckless Driving and Following Too Closely charges amended to avoid license suspension

The firm is please to announce that a negotiated agreement was reached whereby Reckless Driving and Following Too Closely charges were amended to two counts of Traffic Control Devices, eliminating a 6-month mandatory license suspension and 3 points from the client’s driving record.

The client stood accused of getting into a rear-end collision while traveling through the Fort Pitt Tunnels in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The accident was not witnessed by any member of law enforcement, but was filed after the drivers called police to report the accident. Unfortunately, when auto accidents occur, local police officers and state troopers often feel compelled to issue traffic citations to the at-fault driver that may lead to points or a license suspension.

If convicted of Reckless Driving, the client faced a mandatory 6-month driver’s license suspension. To make matters worse, as the client was required to drive for a living, the suspension would have effectively caused the client to lose her job. Additionally, the Following Too Closely offense would carry 3 points on a driving record upon conviction.

Upon researching these consequences, the client and her family chose to trust the Zuckerman Law Firm for representation on this matter. Familiar with Pennsylvania case law on Reckless Driving prosecutions, the firm was prepared to proceed to a hearing if required. However, on the hearing date, Attorney Nick Milardo was able to negotiate an agreement to amend the charges to traffic control device violations under Section 3111A. This resolution carried no license suspension or points, and will have no impact upon the client’s employment.

In Reckless Driving cases, we prepare for trial while working behind the scenes to pursue a desired outcome. Both the client and firm were very satisfied with the outcome.

Not guilty verdict on Simple Assault charge in Allegheny Co. Non-Jury Trial

The Zuckerman Law Firm is pleased to announce that our client was found not guilty of Simple Assault after a non-jury trial in Allegheny County. To protect the confidentiality of the parties involved, names and certain case details will be excluded.

Through testimony, public records and exhibits, the following was presented: In the summer of 2019, the victim and his wife were going through a divorce. The wife had begun dating the firm’s client, and the client had taken his new girlfriend and her children for an evening out. Prior to leaving, the victim and his wife had exchanged messages about their plans for the evening, where the wife made it clear that she was going to be taking her kids with her to see the client. In response, the victim made it clear that he did not want his children around the client, and told his wife he would arrive at their location despite not being invited. Approximately 2-3 hours later, the victim arrived at their location, hid behind bushes, and relayed his observations to a friend on the phone.

About 20 minutes later, the victim and client had a verbal argument, whereby the victim claimed that he was sucker-punched in the back of the head. However, the client told police officers that the victim repeatedly threatened him, and had threatened to cause harm to his own estranged wife. Furthermore, the victim threatened to “end him” and made a reaching motion towards his pocket, leading our client to believe he was grabbing a gun. The client rapidly grabbed the victim’s head in self-defense, releasing his head when discovering that he did not have a gun in his hand. The defense argued that at the time the client grabbed the victim’s head, the client had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of bodily harm.

Evidence presented at trial undermined the credibility of the victim. First, the victim told police that he had just left work, went to visit his wife and kids, and did not know the the client would be present. These claims were clearly contradicted by text messages and the victim’s own prior testimony. Second, testimony revealed that the wife had been physically abused in the past by the victim, and that she communicated this information to the client. Being aware of these violent tendencies, the client believed that the victim was going to harm him at the time he acted in self-defense. Third, although the victim claimed he did not want a confrontation, his actions that day demonstrated otherwise, since: (1) he verbally threatened the client (2) he threatened to give evidence to the client’s wife to use in their divorce and (3) he lowered a shoulder into the client’s chest/torso area when entering a bus stop. Fourth, there were pending divorce claims in family court, establishing a potential motive for the victim to testify adversely against the client, and in a manner that minimized his involvement in the incident.

Given the lack of serious injury and the client’s lack of a criminal record, this should have been a case that resolved at the magistrate level or through the ARD diversionary program. However, the victim took a completely unreasonable stance about the matter, as he was seeking revenge against the man who his wife dated. As a result, the case went to trial.

After hearing the evidence, the Court rendered a not guilty verdict as to the count of Simple Assault, and found the client guilty of a summary offense for harassment, imposing fines and a 90-day non-reporting probationary period. The client will become eligible to expunge the Simple Assault charge from his criminal record.

This case demonstrates how a single witness with dubious credibility can impact how a case proceeds through the system. Thankfully, through careful preparation, the firm was able to tell the other side of the story, leading to the correct outcome.

Not Guilty Verdict in Simple Assault Trial Involving Firearms

The firm is pleased to announce that after a 2.5 day jury trial in October of 2019, the firm’s client was found not guilty of Simple Assault, Recklessly Endangering Another Person and Terroristic Threats.

In 2018, the firm’s client was confronted and threatened by a female who exited her vehicle and lifted her shirt, displaying a firearm on her waistband. In response, the client pulled his firearm out of his pocket and told the female to not touch her weapon. In speaking with police, the female denied having a weapon. The investigation conducted by law enforcement was highly troubling, as they failed to search the female’s vehicle, her purse, or the other occupant in the vehicle. Additionally, they listed the other vehicle occupant as a crime victim without even taking a statement from that individual.

Attorney Zuckerman conducted an investigation which was key in presenting the truth to the jury. Despite the victim’s denial that she had a gun in her possession, it was determined that she was a high-ranking member of a radical political organization that promotes gun ownership amongst its female members. During cross examination at trial, it was further revealed that the female had a valid license to carry firearms, something both the police and District Attorney’s office failed to investigate or disclose to the defense. The client also testified in his own defense and several character witnesses were called to testify about his reputation for being a peaceful, law abiding citizen.

Ultimately, the trial judge granted a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal as to the Recklessly Endangering Another Person charge, finding that there was insufficient evidence to submit the charge to the jury. For the other counts, the jury deliberated for approximately 25 minutes before rendering a not guilty verdict. It is rare that jury deliberations take less than an hour, but to this jury, it was clear that the client was innocent.

This case is a clear example of the dangers that occur when members of law enforcement fail to thoroughly investigate conflicting accounts of an incident before filing charges. This case also highlights the benefits of having an experienced Pittsburgh criminal defense attorney to investigate and defend against bogus accusations.

Contraband and Drug Possession Case Withdrawn in Indiana County

A ZLF client was charged with two separate cases in Indiana County, Pennsylvania. The first case was for Drug Possession. The second case was for Contraband and Drug Possession. Essentially, the client was arrested for the first case and notified members of law enforcement that narcotics were located in a pant pocket. Thereafter, the client was transported to the jail where additional narcotics were found in the same pant pocket. As a result of the second search that occurred in the jail, the client was charged with Contraband, a 2nd Degree Felony, and Drug Possession, a 1st-Degree Misdemeanor. Both offenses carried a maximum sentence of up to 13 years in jail.

At the preliminary hearing, the firm was successfully able to convince the District Attorney’s office that the client should have never been charged with Contraband in the first place, as there was no evidence to establish that drugs were being smuggled into the county jail. Specifically, had law enforcement thoroughly searched the client during the initial arrest, no drugs would have been found at the county jail. As a result, all charges at the second case were withdrawn, allowing the client to avoid a felony conviction without the time and expense of trial.